BAC

I know this is a Starocci thread, but I'm puzzled why everyone is so sure KOT gets another title this year. I'm sorry, but I have O'Toole's chance of repeating this year at sub-50%. His record is 1-2 against Carr, a guy who's never had more than one loss in a season (and he already has his loss this year). Its amazing to me how little respect Carr gets on this forum, with everyone putting him on a different "level" than KOT. And throw in Mesenbrink, who is a dark horse to upset either/both of them. And didn't KOT just barely nip Peyton Hall 8-7? I have KOT and Carr as a toss-up, and MM, although probably a step behind both, is just enough in the mix to put the odds of KOT a little under 50%.

9 of 10 in the top 5.... now THAT would be remarkable.

It’s good to see. He’s in USA singlet now, so it reflects on more than just Iowa now if he goes off the rails. But the difference in maturity and self control is like night and day. Proud of him.

Even if they had gotten the name right, the bigger error is calling a 2-1 score in a Will Lewan match “slower than expected.”

Cody seems very candid and well-spoken. Props.

At first I thought Brands was going to step up to the plate when he seemingly called out the first reporter for nibbling around the AJ issue: Reporter: "Will you be having any additions to the roster second semester?" Brands: "Just ask the specific question." Reporter 1: ".... Will you be having any additions to the roster second semester?" Pathetic journalism, and I was ready to give props to Brands for inviting direct discussion of the issue, only for the reporter to drop the ball a second time. But then another reporter DID man up and ask it: Reporter 2: "Can you comment on AJ's conduct at the end of the Soldier Salute and what is recruiting status is for the second semester? Brand: "You know the answer to that Mike. You've been doing this a long time..." Oh come on Tom. Just answer the freaking question. AJ just did a podcast making it sound like everything's hunky-dory with Iowa and saying he'd just been admitted, and Pyles has gone on record saying it is "very likely" AJ's recruiting status is unchanged at Iowa, but over at HR reporter they're saying they nixed AJ. So no, we don't know. Saying no one's joining second semester "at this time" is an empty truism. Of course he can't go into detail, but a simple "No we are not recruiting him now" or even a "The situation is fluid, we will have to wait and see how it plays out" would be better than just berating journalists for doing their job. No one's listening to the interviews to hear you spew out empty "one day at a time" cliches and scowl at the journalists. Either answer the questions or don't do interviews at all. And the journalists are even worse. If you're not going to ask real questions, or push back even a little bit when there's resistance to telling the truth, get a new job.

Bucky, Here is the only backstory you need to know. In the "Creeps in the wrestling community" thread (elsewhere on this page), there is discussion about youth wrestling videographers, one or two in particular, who are perceived by many as shooting and thumbnailing their videos in an overly suggestive manner, attracting the attention of (if not outright catering to and/or profiting from) the prurient desires of a certain unsavory subset of the population, leading to otherwise unremarkable youth wrestling videos having millions of views. Some in the wrestling community have sounded the alarm -- hence the thread -- and pushed back. Various members of the wrestling media, including JB, have chimed in with more context. Several pages in, "commonsense2400" formed an account and started posting in defense of one or more of those whose works are at issue, and -- apparently believing "the best defense is a good offense" -- started taking aim at posters, accusing them of everything from defamation to aiding and abetting criminal acts. These included pot shots at JB which have now morphed into this new thread. That's your context. Judge for yourself. My opinion, FWIW, is EVERY post of "commonsense2400" should be regarded as bad faith intimidation tactics existing for the SOLE purpose of bullying into silence those who take issue with makers of the videos that have caused widespread serious concern in the wrestling community.

Why do you keep saying this? Surely you know it isn't true: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72431 If you are going to try to intimidate people with accusations of defamation, you might want to make sure your own posts are truthful. You also may want to educate your client on Youtube's Community Guidelines policy against sexualization of minors: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801999 Note that, per the first link, thumbnail selections must conform to these Community Guidelines as well. To all: I would encourage you to likewise review the above Community Guidelines on Youtube regarding the prohibition of sexualization of minors and, if you believe in good faith that a given Youtube video crosses the line as articulated in these standards, irrespective of who posted it, report it here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802027 I would encourage you to use discretion in reporting. Obviously it needs to be more than a kid in a singlet in wrestling match. IMO, casting too broad a net or penalizing high-end videography is not good for the sport. Step back, be objective, be fair, and don't report it unless it is "sexually suggestive" within the meaning of the published policy. But if it is: do your part and report it. Per Youtube guidelines, if they agree, the video will be removed and the Youtuber will get a "strike." The policy also says: "If you get 3 strikes within 90 days, your channel will be terminated." It also says that violations will be reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Gotcha. I could go down a rabbit hole on this one, but respectfully, the answer isn't opening Youtube up to liability. The cost of self-policing is absolutely massive, and content hosts will err on the side of caution, so what will happen is a massive overcorrection where either (a) a huge portion of content goes behind a paywall (passing costs to the consumer), or (b) a huge part of the internet dries up (as content hosts lack the resources to review/police it), or, most likely, (c) both. The other legislative problem is that politicians are too caught up in what minors can do online, and not focused enough on what adults can do to harm and exploit minors. State and federal legislators LOVE to pass new laws restricting what kids can see/do on the internet -- Youtube is currently under an FTC consent decree from 2019 for failing to police this -- but what do legislators do to protect the kids from adults? Precious little. You want a legislative fix? Here's mine. Amend the Copyright Act to provide that parents/guardians of minor children automatically own a limited copyright in the image/likeness of their minor child, and can enforce that copyright by requiring videos/photos be taken down, unless they have given express permission (e.g. via signed waiver for an event). In other words, expand the right to make a DMCA takedown request to parents. Right now, all we have is a messy patchwork of state privacy laws, most of them inadequate. The Copyright Act provides a quick and easy nationwide solution.

You gotta be careful what you ask for here. If common wrestling positions can constitute "simulated sexual conduct," and if the appearance of the typical wrestling singlet can constitute "transparently clothed genitals," then not only would every single youth wrestling video risk prosecution for child pornography, it also would mean those who who watch or store those videos are guilty of viewing/possessing child porn, and those who sponsor wrestling events are engaged in criminal acts. Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Prosecuting someone on these grounds would create a chilling effect on wrestling media that could be a death knell for the entire sport. If you're going to go after someone criminally, it needs to be based on their very specific conduct in relation to child pornographers and consumers, and not merely the high-res nature of the videos.

I'm actually saying something a little bit different. I'm not talking about whether Flo or other organizations give permission. I'm talking about the permission they receive. I'm talking about putting the control in the hands of the state/national wrestling organizations, instead of giving unfettered discretion to the media organizations to use or misuse their photos/videos as they see fit. Let me give you an example. Let's say the Indiana state organization of USA-Wrestling (lets call it "USAW-I") is holding a U17 state freestyle tournament. Can anyone just walk in and start filming? No -- not if USAW-I doesn't allow it. They can forbid videos/photography, or impose limits. They can permit filming only where media credentials are given. And they can dictate the terms of those credentials. You don't like it, you don't get to film. So lets say 3 media organizations/individuals apply for media credentials. Instead of just handing out credentials and video rights unconditionally, USAW-I can say on the rights form: Sure, you can record, but we retain ownership of the copyright on whatever you record. We grant you a license, but we retain the right to rescind that license or to exercise our rights under the copyright laws if we determine, in our sole discretion, that they work is inappropriate, offensive or is being misused by you or others. If USAW-I does that, and videos from their tournament are shot in a dodgy way or have a mysteriously high number of Youtube views or show up on a sketchy website, then complaints are routed to USAW-I, which can immediately do a "takedown notice" under copyright laws (see https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622?hl=en), and then under federal law, Youtube (or whatever the website is) has to comply promptly, usually in a matter of days if not hours. Caveats: -- Many wrestling organizations aren't so great about exercising these rights. But they do have them. This episode should be an eye-opener to state organizations to be more vigilant about implementing and enforcing no-video/no-photo rules absent organizer permission, particularly in the youth context. -- This isn't the only approach. Wrestling organizations can simply be more vigilant about who they give credentials to. But the problem is, it is hard to know. There's no doubt legit videographers out there, who also have a side business of catering to prurient interests. Organizations also can retain the right to rescind credentials, but that doesn't solve the problem of them having already acquired a library of stuff to peddle. -- Some media organizations may take exception to not owning copyrights in their works. Owning a license isn't as valuable as owning a copyright. Personally I think it is justified in the youth context. If necessary, an exception could be made with well-known media organizations, but even there, the credential agreement should include limitations -- e.g. using the videos only on their own websites, not re-licensing them without the organization's permission, and/or agreeing to exercise a DMCA takedown notice if requested by the organization. Point is, there are workarounds to accommodate the media organization's desire to own its own IP, while still ensuring the organization retains the ability to be responsive to instances of misuse. -- It isn't always the state wrestling organizations that control media access. Sometimes it is private organizations, which I hope would follow suit. Sometimes it is the media organization itself (e.g. I assume Flo controls access to its "Who's Number One" event). I'm not worried about them, as they're keeping the rights for themselves and I can't imagine they'd ever license it to a suspect actor. -- There's other complicators too. I'm not in the loop on the processes currently used by USAW and other organizations, and what processes they mandate to their state organizations, and what limitations they have by virtue of falling under the USOC/IOC umbrella. I'm also not sure how flexible the wrestling media would be in agreeing to additional copyright restrictions in the youth context. Flo, for example, has come a long way from its early days of just sort of showing up and filming until they get kicked out (and risking copyright objections from exclusive broadcasters), to now apparently negotiating exclusive rights for themselves in many of the events they cover. But I think its an idea worth exploring as I gather this issue is more widespread than we realize, and exists in wrestling's underbelly where we seldom look.

That is awfully naive. Do you see as many creepy videographers lining up at youth judo, karate, boxing tournaments? How many Youtube sites are out there with close-ups of those competitors? Show me the comment section where some perv is saying "Dang, little Johnny looks sexy in that baggy gi." Now look at the Youtube website that everyone's talking about. Click the "popular" tab, so you see the most-viewed videos first... over a dozen with a million views. What do all those videos stills/thumbnails have in common? Besides almost all being little-known youth wrestlers, almost all under-18 males in singlets. What body anatomy is visible in outline form, front and center, in them? Now take a wild guess. Why do you THINK these videos have so many views? I'm sure there'd be some pervs around the sport no matter what, and I'm not saying moving away from singlets would be a cure-all. I'm sure it wouldn't be. But if you think the choice of attire has nothing to do with the attention our sport gets from this segment of the population, your head is in the sand. Admitting this is most definitely NOT justifying the predators, nor is it blaming the victim. It is simply stating a fact. Attire choice influences decisions. It doesn't justify those decisions, but it influences them. What you choose to do with that information is up to you. If you want to say "we shouldn't have to change our attire just to keep the pervs away," go for it. But don't pretend it isn't influencing their behavior when it obviously is.

YouTube won't do anything without a subpoena. And they're immune under Sec. 230 of the CDA. That's why I phrased my post in terms of info you need to collect and give to investigators to arm them.

Sounds lovely, but even if the tough-guy approach were legal, its sort if like saying you can solve the drug problem by taking out a single drug dealer. It won't work if the source is still there and the consumers are still there. You're still going to have hundreds of thousands of people scouring the internet for this stuff. You don't think someone else will come along and fill the need? My opinion on preventative measures: 1. This should be seen as, first and foremost, a child protection issue. You're never going to stop a certain subset of people from salivating over buff dudes. Get over it. Anyone out there who *hasn't* jacked off to a picture of a sexy female athlete? I doubt it. I'm all for keeping the creeps out of *all* events, but focus on keeping kids from being exploited. 2. The main issue is too many unvetted people getting photo/video credentials. Youth events should be, by default, no photo or video allowed, unless (a) you're the kid's parent, or (b) you have the written consent of the parent, or (c) you were specifically granted credentials by the event organizer, which should require a showing that they are a legitimate media organization. The question no one is asking -- but should -- is why on earth is some guy who has nothing more than a Youtube channel being allowed to film, especially in a youth setting? Everyone knows Youtube pays by the view. Take a guess what drives view counts. Event sponsors should condition their support on having clear and restrictive policies in place. 3. In the youth context, even sponsors should insist on retaining ownership of the copyright on all photos and video taken from their event. In other words, they condition their granting of recording/photo rights to them signing a document stating that (a) their product is a work-for-hire, and (b) the event organizer (e.g. USAW) grants a license, but ownership. This way, the organizer retains the ability to police how the videos/photos are used -- and, when they appear to be drawing the wrong crowd, you can do a DMCA takedown request its gone in a matter of days. Perhaps exceptions can be made for certain reputable organizations regarding ownership, but it is crazy that sponsors aren't retaining control to police the misuse of photos and videos taken at their events with their permission.

Some initial thoughts from a legal perspective. 1. From a criminal standpoint, in bringing this to authorities, you need to do more than simply point out that there's a ton of views by people who clearly have prurient interests. Its too easy for the photographer/ videographer to say, "It isn't my fault that these people exist. They're going to naturally go to whatever website has the highest quality videos and that happens to be mine." You need to marshal forth facts that he's tailoring his content to them and engaging with them, and you need to focus on the videos of minors, where your argument is strongest. Point out: (a) How if you click on the "popular" tab on Youtube (so it organizes videos by view count), almost all of the video stills (thumbnails) includes an image of the (minor) wrestler's crotch. Not a coincidence. (b) Specific examples of camera angles, camera focus, and the choice of which wrestler to follow during breaks, that evidence they are not focused on the wrestling but the wrestler and their anatomy. (c) Efforts by the videographer/photographer to seek out specific wrestlers who previously appealed to this community. Are there efforts to seek out the interview of certain wrestlers, or to take multiple videos of their matches, that is not explained by their prowess as a wrestler but, rather, by the viewcount of their last video by prurient elements? (d) Examples of interaction between videographer and commenters that further the notion that he is seeking to indulge their desires rather than showcase the sport of wrestling. (e) Find links to his website on adult websites, and seek ways to trace them to the photographer. Encourage law enforcement to find out from Youtube the identity of the URLs from which traffic is resolving. (f) Find examples of his work on adult websites. If no DMCA takedown notice has been done, why? Is it being licensed, and/or a royalty paid? (g) There are other things that can be done too which I won't mention, but an experienced investigator would know. 2. From a parental standpoint: (a) First and foremost, be careful about what forms/waivers you sign for your kid. If it includes filming or likeness rights, cross it out, or ask in advance to know the name and contact info of those who will be given filming rights. You are the first line of defense for your kid. If you DO sign it, keep a copy -- take a picture with your phone. And you see your kid's video online, contact the tournament organizer to see if you signed a waiver, get a copy of it, and demand to see the list of persons to whom credentials were given. (b) Copyright laws won't help much since you probably don't own the copyright, but if the video wasn't shot by whoever is hosting it, contact the person to shot the video, demand to know what permissions they gave, and demand they do a DMCA takedown notice. Similarly, if the video was shot without authorization of the event organizers, contact them with a demand to enforce their rights against unauthorized filmers. (c) Research and use child privacy laws in your state. This is going to be highly state-specific, as federal rights are more circumspect. Some state laws are more robust (e.g. California's CCPA, updated by the CPRA). Whatever form you signed, don't assume it includes a right to put a suggestive picture of your kid on the internet and profit from it. (And if your state has a crappy child privacy law, talk to your legislator.) (d) Research and use right of publicity laws in your state. Again, this is highly state specific, and more narrow and less useful than privacy laws, but may be useful if your kid isn't a minor, and may give a path to civil suit. A copyright defense isn't necessarily a defense to an image appropriation. 3. Reach out to your state AG's office. They have their own menu of options and may be able to pursue the photographer/videographer, whether criminally or civilly, based on some of the above avenues.

Link here: https://iasportsco.smoothcomp.com/en/event/14853/bracket/871606 Go to Round of 16 match with Adam Thebeau, then to 9:18. Ref not paying attention and dings Nebraska for a point when he retaliates. I'm sure Iowa is fine with it.

Thanks, that's interesting.

Thanks, this captures it all, though its annoying to have to cock your head to the side to watch it. I'm trying to think about what memes to make with the double-bird + splits image. Ideas, anyone?

So the Ferrari we saw yesterday was just as good as the 2021 NCAA Champ version, apart from a little first-competition gassing? Oh man, Brooks would DESTROY him. I can't believe this is even a conversation.

What happened to "You're assuming regression, whereas I think stagnation is far more likely"?

Definitely agree Titus is having a monster start to the season. He seems to have level-jumped. Undefeated I think? Watters and Conley are solid too. High level recruits. I wonder about the depth of WVU's coaching staff though, especially in the upper weights. Flynn is awesome but pushing 60 so he needs a strong team of assistants. Moore has been with Flynn a long time, but he's getting up there too. Who else besides him and Port is rolling around with these guys on a day to day basis? Moore/Port were both '33/'41, around Titus/Watters' weight -- so that's great for them -- but not so sure about everyone else. Budget's always an issue, but WVU's in a pretty big wrestling area. Would be cool to see them built out their infrastructure a bit more.

Would that still be your choice if you or your daughter were Muslim, or you had Muslims in your family? Honestly, I like Brooks, a lot, and respect his religious views, but I'd need to know his proselytizing wasn't going to put undue pressure on my kid to conform to his worldview to be contemptuous of other religions. Otherwise its disqualifying. I don't think DeSanto deserves to be lumped in with A and B. Three or even two years ago, yes, but to my eyes, he has grown and matured a good bit.

Link? Curious to read that.

I'm not suggesting Brands is suddenly going to get weak-kneed just because a recruit threw a punch and flipped the bird. Or even that it was an Iowa guy he did it to. Brands has always operated on the periphery, on the outer edges of the ethical, recasting unsportsmanlike conduct as merely being "passionate." Just look at his vocal defense of Rathjen's antics. I think the bigger issues are (1) he did it to the crowd, turning the entire Iowa crowd passionately against AJ., and (2) he just wasn't that good. The whole reason that Brands was willing to take a chance on AJ is he wants to win at all costs, and he wants to win at all costs because that keeps Iowa fans and admin on his side. But if Iowans do NOT want AJ -- and as of now, clearly they won't -- then the wins AJ brings won't matter. Brands now risks having his own guy get booed if he puts AJ on the mat, and that's worse for Brands' job security than losing. Maybe Iowa fans could get over it if AJ was suddenly the key to winning NCAAs, e.g. that Iowa was just one stud away from beating PSU, and the antics happened after AJ just finished tech-pinning Glazier. But in fact, AJ was barely a rounding error better than Glazier. He likely wouldn't create many if any new team wins, and sure wouldn't going to put them over the hump against PSU. In short, I'm not putting Brands on a pedestal and thinking he'll suddenly get all moral on us, but his cold "win at all costs" calculus no longer helps AJ.

Completely reasonable. Though I suspect Anthony leaves with AJ, and that Angelo decommits in fealty to his brothers, I do hope Angelo stays. You but have to think he'd be better off far from home, with his brothers not there, so he's able develop his character without their (especially AJ's) influence.